@misc{9227226,
  abstract     = {{In 1970, Sweden enacted new legislation on withholding tax, the Coupon Tax Act (Swedish Kupongskattelagen) (1970:624) (KupL). The Act go-verns the Swedish taxation of dividends distributed by Swedish companies to foreign individuals and legal entities subject to limited tax liability in Sweden. In connection with the enactment of the Act, a new anti-avoidance provision was also introduced into Swedish law. This provision, contained in paragraph 4, section 3 of the KupL, has in modern scholarship come to be known as the nominee rule (Swedish bulvanregeln). Its purpose is to prevent the circumvention of coupon tax. However, the provision, which is now rather old, is unusually worded and contains two vague and imprecise criteria, making it difficult to apply in practice. The preparatory works con-tain only sparse guidance, and the provision has in practice been applied only a handful of times. As a result, there is considerable uncertainty today regarding both the provision itself and the scope of its application.
In 2015, the amending directive was adopted within the European Union, thereby introducing a new anti-abuse provision into the Parent-Subsidiary Directive. At that time, the Swedish legislature concluded that this provis-ion had already been implemented in Swedish law through the nominee rule, and the nominee rule was therefore left unchanged. Since then, both the nominee rule and the Coupon Tax Act as a whole have been the subject of several legislative reviews. None of these has resulted in reform. The nominee rule thus remains in force today, along with the problems associa-ted with it.
This thesis examines the nominee rule. First, preparatory works and case law are identified and systematised in order to establish the current state of the law. Thereafter, the anti-abuse provision in Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive is examined. In a similar manner, an attempt is made to map that provision’s purpose, structure and scope of application. These parts form the basis for the final comparative analysis of the two provisions and their respective scopes of application. The analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of the nominee rule, while at the same time high-lighting a number of shortcomings. Finally, the findings relating to the no-minee rule are critically assessed from the perspective of legal certainty.
Without disclosing the outcome of the analysis in advance, it may already be said that the legislature’s decision to leave the nominee rule unchanged can be questioned on several grounds. For a number of reasons, reform ap-pears necessary.}},
  author       = {{Pecic, Vejsil}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{En otidsenlig bulvan - En (kritisk) studie om hur bulvanregeln i kupongskattelagen ska förstås ur EU-rättslig kontext}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}